Redemption fine on confiscated goods must be proportionate; the fine was upheld in principle but reduced in quantum.

Where goods are liable to confiscation, redemption fine may be imposed, but its quantum must remain reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. The assessee had accepted the duty demand and penalty, leaving only the redemption fine in dispute. As the goods were found liable to confiscation, the fine was sustained in principle; however, because duty, interest and equivalent penalty had already been paid, the original fine was held excessive and reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the redemption fine imposed on goods found liable to confiscation was sustainable in quantum.

Analysis: The appellants had admitted the duty demand and penalty, and the dispute survived only in relation to the redemption fine. The goods were found liable to confiscation because the fabrics were processed with the aid of power driven machinery, but the amount of redemption fine imposed was considered disproportionate in the circumstances, particularly since the duty, interest and equivalent penalty had already been paid.

Conclusion: The imposition of redemption fine was upheld, but its quantum was reduced as the original amount was found to be excessively high.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of the redemption fine, while the liability to confiscation and fine in principle was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are liable to confiscation, redemption fine may be imposed, but its quantum must be reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

---